MR. FORD: If I want to -- I think what you're telling me is I cannot have certain trial strategies because you're not going to separate these trials, and you are going to limit what my trial strategy is, what my potential ability to do on cross examination is because we have to have a joint trial.
THE COURT: I'm trying to see why it would be -- why it would be a contrary offense to anything by Baldwin. I assume his defense is -- I mean Echols' defense is going to be, I didn't do it. I wasn't there. So what's the inconsistency?
MR. FORD: That's not the only factor that the Court can consider as to whether they have antagonistic defenses. There are other factors for the Court to consider and I'm raising those arguments as well.
THE COURT: I'm also concerned about judicial economy, where I cannot see a real reason to separate them and to have a tremendous additional cost of time and energy of the Court and the parties.
I understand that his right to a fair and impartial trial probably outweighs every other possible consideration. I'm fully aware of that.
MR. FORD: You're not aware of all of the facts that I'm aware of. You're not privy to the State's
1220: (Partial)
discovery file. You're not privy to my conversations with my client.
THE COURT: You better be telling me something then if you want a severance.
MR. FORD: Your Honor, I'm trying to tell you something
THE COURT: Well, I'm listening.
MR. FORD: I have tried to tell you some of the things I'm going to try to do. For me to be denied the ability call a person as a witness to help establish that, that says you don't have that possible defense tactic. You're saying you cannot have that one by saying I have to go to trial with
